The Cloverfield Thread (SPOILERS)

Krystian Ramlogan · January 24th, 2008, 09:10 PM

Hi Dylan.

Ok, I hear you. But, just to clarify, Cloverfield was 84 minutes including opening and closing credits, (see nytimes or roger ebert on suntimes) so they really got your attention for a lot less time than the casual oh it was 90 minutes long.

Of course, my feeling is that, were there more of a story there would have been a need for more time, or the time would have been better used. Or conversely, it needed to be really short or people would cop to the lack of substance in it.

I understand your view that there are "many" ways to qualify a movie as "good" but there are some basic parameters, or dimensions, or elements, that are found in all good movies. Most would say that a paramount element would be the presence of a compelling story.

What qualifies as a compelling story then would be the main theme you are suggesting to explore?

Cloverfield drew you in because there was a compelling story being played out on screen that caught your attention and held it.

If I have that right, correct me if I'm wrong, what "story" elements worked for you? And, if you can, tell me what didn't work for you, if at anytime you came out of the experience. Although, you didn't disagree with anything specific I'd said.

Perhaps Cloverfield will become a cult classic, I'm not sure, but as with all movies, even the ones "I" think sucked, there's always something to be learned.

K.

Dylan Couper · January 24th, 2008, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

Hi Dylan.

Ok, I hear you. But, just to clarify, Cloverfield was 84 minutes including opening and closing credits, (see nytimes or roger ebert on suntimes) so they really got your attention for a lot less time than the casual oh it was 90 minutes long.

You don't have a girlfriend, do you?

Pete Bauer · January 24th, 2008, 11:32 PM

But that's ok, neither does Dylan!
;-)

Jay Kavi · January 25th, 2008, 01:48 AM

I though it had some really nice sound design. but my eyes were closed most of the time because i was getting motion sick.

Dave Robinson · January 25th, 2008, 03:50 AM

The top listed video here is the prequel to Cloverfield.

Krystian Ramlogan · January 25th, 2008, 05:08 AM

Lol, actually yes I do :-)

But, I am a film major, and a filmmaker, so I pay close attention to what I screen...

Dylan Couper · January 25th, 2008, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

But, I am a film major, and a filmmaker, so I pay close attention to what I screen...

You're killing me.

Krystian Ramlogan · January 26th, 2008, 10:24 AM

lol...

I'm going to raise what you said in class and see what happens...

Anthony Schneider · January 27th, 2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

What does one have at the beginning, middle and end? A big nothing. What was the point of this movie? Showing that audiences will come if you have a great marketing plan and no story? No true conflict, forced tension, bad acting, poor dynamics, no character development. I should be so lucky to write something that bad and have it make some cash. Although it's seen progressively big falloffs everyday; if there were some real competition at the box office, I don't think it would have brought anything significant in.

As for worrying about the camera, batteries, etc. Throughout the movie what the characters say and do, reference these things and show the huge holes in the script. Who was playing the tape/SD card? Why? Battery life...well they say how long the camera was running for...footage jumping back and forth, on tape?, even on SD Card that's laughable...audio quality, wow, get me on of those...lighting...colors...wow, great camera...if the filmmakers didn't draw attention to these things, they wouldn't stand out.

Worst movie I have seen in a long time.

If you like it, perhaps you could say WHY you did, so I could work that into a film discussion class I have.

K.

I loved it because of many of the reasons you have for hating it. If you understand that the holes in the story and plot/no dynamics and poor character development were done intentionally, you might understand why I feel that Cloverfield is in some sense perfect. This isn't a "normal" narrative film in any sense, and I hate that people are criticising it as one. It was marketed perfectly for you to understand how the entire film would be, and people still went into it expecting to see some nice little fairy tail beginning, middle, and end. It breaks the rules and that's why it is beautiful.

Krystian Ramlogan · January 27th, 2008, 06:29 PM

Using artistic liscense as an excuse, sorry "reason", only goes so far when one examines the entire film, even casually.

To suggest that it can explain away everything flawed about the movie is not a view I share.

It cannot explain bad acting, poor development, unbelieavable actions/reactions by the characters, lack of dramamtic conflict, and the super stretched credibility of an uber consumer camera that captured everything, etc. as I mentioned before. In its attempt to portray a realistic situation, it falls far short and insteads becomes a parody of what it supposedly intends.

Movies are about extreme situations sure, but there is always a logic to how people, normal, sane, or otherwise, behave in those extreme situations. I didn't have any expectations other than to be entertained; I wasn't. I wasn't looking for anything like a nice little fairy tale, just a good movie; it wasn't that for me.

Ben Winter · January 28th, 2008, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

A Monster appears out of thin air and proceeds to go on a mindless rampage, destroying lives in the process.

Sounds a little like Godzilla doesn't it? Just a little? And we all know how that idea absolutely bombed... You've got to take popularity into account when determining the "greatness" of a movie, otherwise frankly you'll be making movies no one will watch.

The Great Train Robbery was so popular in the 1900's because of its novelty. People had never seen film like that. Sure, cops n' robbers had been done many times before on the stage. But the medium was new. Thus is the popularity of Cloverfield. People wanted an apocalyptic thriller, and Abrams gave it to them with an inventive method and impressive creativity.

I don't go to the movies with a checklist. I walk in, I walk out, and if I had a good time, it goes on my recommendations.

If you want to feel something after watching a movie, well...that's what netflix is for. Don't be so stingy.

I too, by the way, am a student and filmmaker.

Kelly Goden · January 28th, 2008, 01:27 PM

Godzilla sucked because it was a badly made movie, not because the traditional giant monster movie had become obsolete. In fact advances in fx technology dictate that they could do a killer giant monster spectacle with CG realism but it would mean good storytelling and studio support.

Biggest mistake with Godzilla was not having another monster show up for him to fight in the last act. Instead we see him running away from helicopters like a wimp. Its a no brainer.

Hollywood is becoming worse and worse at making fun movies with a knack for showmanship like you had with a Harryhausen movie.

They overthink the concept and hand wring about marketing and gimmicks.

Krystian Ramlogan · January 28th, 2008, 02:22 PM

Hi Ben.

I've mentioned the similarity to Godzilla previously...and it did suck. I also said I didn't have any expectations about this movie, other than to be entertained. I never said I had a checklist, but I do expect my money's worth.

I don't agree that Cloverfield is greatly popular; either you like it or you don't. But, it's a gimmicky one trick pony and it just doesn't appeal to me. As for your last statement, it seems antagonistic.

I gave my opinion, and it's just that: mine. Anyone can agree or disagree with it and that's ok. I gave it freely, because sharing opinions is what we do to learn others views on topics that interest us, especially when it comes to something as subjective as movies. I'm not saying my views are the only ones or that I'm "correct".

My 2c.

K.

January 24th, 2008, 11:32 PM	#48
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	But that's ok, neither does Dylan! ;-) __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

January 24th, 2008, 09:10 PM	#46
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	Hi Dylan. Ok, I hear you. But, just to clarify, Cloverfield was 84 minutes including opening and closing credits, (see nytimes or roger ebert on suntimes) so they really got your attention for a lot less time than the casual oh it was 90 minutes long. Of course, my feeling is that, were there more of a story there would have been a need for more time, or the time would have been better used. Or conversely, it needed to be really short or people would cop to the lack of substance in it. I understand your view that there are "many" ways to qualify a movie as "good" but there are some basic parameters, or dimensions, or elements, that are found in all good movies. Most would say that a paramount element would be the presence of a compelling story. What qualifies as a compelling story then would be the main theme you are suggesting to explore? Cloverfield drew you in because there was a compelling story being played out on screen that caught your attention and held it. If I have that right, correct me if I'm wrong, what "story" elements worked for you? And, if you can, tell me what didn't work for you, if at anytime you came out of the experience. Although, you didn't disagree with anything specific I'd said. Perhaps Cloverfield will become a cult classic, I'm not sure, but as with all movies, even the ones "I" think sucked, there's always something to be learned. K.

January 25th, 2008, 01:48 AM	#49
Jay Kavi Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 243	I though it had some really nice sound design. but my eyes were closed most of the time because i was getting motion sick.

January 25th, 2008, 03:50 AM	#50
Dave Robinson Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Conwy, Wales Posts: 208	The top listed video here is the prequel to Cloverfield.

January 25th, 2008, 05:08 AM	#51
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	Lol, actually yes I do :-) But, I am a film major, and a filmmaker, so I pay close attention to what I screen...

January 26th, 2008, 10:24 AM	#53
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	lol... I'm going to raise what you said in class and see what happens...

January 27th, 2008, 06:29 PM	#55
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	Using artistic liscense as an excuse, sorry "reason", only goes so far when one examines the entire film, even casually. To suggest that it can explain away everything flawed about the movie is not a view I share. It cannot explain bad acting, poor development, unbelieavable actions/reactions by the characters, lack of dramamtic conflict, and the super stretched credibility of an uber consumer camera that captured everything, etc. as I mentioned before. In its attempt to portray a realistic situation, it falls far short and insteads becomes a parody of what it supposedly intends. Movies are about extreme situations sure, but there is always a logic to how people, normal, sane, or otherwise, behave in those extreme situations. I didn't have any expectations other than to be entertained; I wasn't. I wasn't looking for anything like a nice little fairy tale, just a good movie; it wasn't that for me.

January 28th, 2008, 01:27 PM	#57
Kelly Goden Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Surrey BC Posts: 259	Godzilla sucked because it was a badly made movie, not because the traditional giant monster movie had become obsolete. In fact advances in fx technology dictate that they could do a killer giant monster spectacle with CG realism but it would mean good storytelling and studio support. Biggest mistake with Godzilla was not having another monster show up for him to fight in the last act. Instead we see him running away from helicopters like a wimp. Its a no brainer. Hollywood is becoming worse and worse at making fun movies with a knack for showmanship like you had with a Harryhausen movie. They overthink the concept and hand wring about marketing and gimmicks.

January 28th, 2008, 02:22 PM	#58
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	Hi Ben. I've mentioned the similarity to Godzilla previously...and it did suck. I also said I didn't have any expectations about this movie, other than to be entertained. I never said I had a checklist, but I do expect my money's worth. I don't agree that Cloverfield is greatly popular; either you like it or you don't. But, it's a gimmicky one trick pony and it just doesn't appeal to me. As for your last statement, it seems antagonistic. I gave my opinion, and it's just that: mine. Anyone can agree or disagree with it and that's ok. I gave it freely, because sharing opinions is what we do to learn others views on topics that interest us, especially when it comes to something as subjective as movies. I'm not saying my views are the only ones or that I'm "correct". My 2c. K.